Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Hi all,
The second paper has an _earlier_ deadline, not later. We should have our comments together on Monday. Here are mine
Physics: L195-201: why do you use the difference between the simulation and the simulation weighted to match the data as systematic uncertainty? That seems overly conservative. Why not reweight the simulation and then take the effect of the uncertainties on the weights to determine the systematic? L.209: any statement about the significance of that measurement?
General: The introduction needs a bit of work. Abstract: through the decay chain Ds*-> Dsgamma and Ds->KKpi. L.19: "analogous" (in what respect?) is unclear here. That is only explained in L.34. Please re-order and specify. L.24: "decay has". Why statistical? L.27: CP -> \CP also elsewhere L.41-42: supports -> is compatible with. We do not "support" the B factories. L.54: was -> is L.55: remove : L.57: X -> $X$. L.92: the -> any (we presume that's the case. Else explain how the PV is selected.) L.108: Ds-K(pi) -> DsX (since you defined that) (no dash) Fig.2: Suggest M(KKpi) rather than Ds. L.125: Remove "as each other" L.146-48: "Fully... signal". We fail to understand the meaning of that sentence. L.170-171: Repeats line 102 Fig.3: The labels are much too small. Fig.4: Is that figure essential in this paper? It seems more adapted for additional material. Section 5: Your enumeration for carriage returns and incomplete sentences does not work well (why did you not use description?). We suggest to make it to normal sentences and paragraphs with indents. L.179-181: MeV/c^2 L.195: Ref. [3] L.205: systematics -> systematic uncertainty. Table 1: why is cross-feed in "" in one case but not the other. Fig.5 would be more appropriate for additional material for talks. Caption : from Ref. [2]. Plot: Draw a line between the 2 R and R* measurements as they are different things. y Label : R^{(*)} L.213: turns out to be -> is determined to be L.221: bf -> {\cal B} L.222: errors -> uncertainties
Cheers,
Patrick
On 25/02/15 22:20, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
Indeed, PAPER-2015-008 has deadline 2 March and it is PAPER-2015-010 that has dead line 4 March.
I ask everybody to comment first on PAPER-2015-008 (including myself). Sorry, Lennaert you have to circulate on Monday and upload to CDS on Monday evening.
I will collect till Tuesday morning and circulate on Tuesday afternoon.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch:
Hi all,
The second paper has an _earlier_ deadline, not later. We should have our comments together on Monday. Here are mine
Physics: L195-201: why do you use the difference between the simulation and the simulation weighted to match the data as systematic uncertainty? That seems overly conservative. Why not reweight the simulation and then take the effect of the uncertainties on the weights to determine the systematic? L.209: any statement about the significance of that measurement?
General: The introduction needs a bit of work. Abstract: through the decay chain Ds*-> Dsgamma and Ds->KKpi. L.19: "analogous" (in what respect?) is unclear here. That is only explained in L.34. Please re-order and specify. L.24: "decay has". Why statistical? L.27: CP -> \CP also elsewhere L.41-42: supports -> is compatible with. We do not "support" the B factories. L.54: was -> is L.55: remove : L.57: X -> $X$. L.92: the -> any (we presume that's the case. Else explain how the PV is selected.) L.108: Ds-K(pi) -> DsX (since you defined that) (no dash) Fig.2: Suggest M(KKpi) rather than Ds. L.125: Remove "as each other" L.146-48: "Fully... signal". We fail to understand the meaning of that sentence. L.170-171: Repeats line 102 Fig.3: The labels are much too small. Fig.4: Is that figure essential in this paper? It seems more adapted for additional material. Section 5: Your enumeration for carriage returns and incomplete sentences does not work well (why did you not use description?). We suggest to make it to normal sentences and paragraphs with indents. L.179-181: MeV/c^2 L.195: Ref. [3] L.205: systematics -> systematic uncertainty. Table 1: why is cross-feed in "" in one case but not the other. Fig.5 would be more appropriate for additional material for talks. Caption : from Ref. [2]. Plot: Draw a line between the 2 R and R* measurements as they are different things. y Label : R^{(*)} L.213: turns out to be -> is determined to be L.221: bf -> {\cal B} L.222: errors -> uncertainties
Cheers,
Patrick
On 25/02/15 22:20, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg LHCb Physics Coordinator Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments:
Line 101: Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several hundreds of MeV/c2".
Line 107: Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given.
Figure 2: Add "without background" after "signal". Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. Where is a description of these simulations? Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined.
Figure 5: A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other three numbers. Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional side bars".
Line 218: R does not represent a decay mode. Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by "both values of R and R*". We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively large". If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier in the paper.
Line 222: Add "," after systematic. Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)".
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments:
Line 101: Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several hundreds of MeV/c2".
Line 107: Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given.
Figure 2: Add "without background" after "signal". Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. Where is a description of these simulations? Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined.
Figure 5: A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other three numbers. Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional side bars".
Line 218: R does not represent a decay mode. Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by "both values of R and R*". We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively large". If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier in the paper.
Line 222: Add "," after systematic. Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)".
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Lennaert,
Did you have any physics remarks? If not you can paste on CDS what's to do with physics and say the text comments will come tomorrow. They are on a tight timescale as they want to show that on Wednesday at the LHCC. But for the text it can wait a few days. The EB reading is March 16...
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/03/15 09:21, Lennaert Bel wrote:
Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments:
Line 101: Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several hundreds of MeV/c2".
Line 107: Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given.
Figure 2: Add "without background" after "signal". Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. Where is a description of these simulations? Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined.
Figure 5: A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other three numbers. Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional side bars".
Line 218: R does not represent a decay mode. Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by "both values of R and R*". We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively large". If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier in the paper.
Line 222: Add "," after systematic. Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)".
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hoi Lennaert,
Mick is zo vriendelijk zich te ontfermen overe deze zaak.... hij zal hetr mailen. groeten, - Marcel
On 2 March 2015 at 09:21, Lennaert Bel lbel@nikhef.nl wrote:
Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments:
Line 101: Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a
several
hundreds of MeV/c2".
Line 107: Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given.
Figure 2: Add "without background" after "signal". Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. Where is a description of these simulations? Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined.
Figure 5: A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other three numbers. Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional side bars".
Line 218: R does not represent a decay mode. Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by "both values of R and R*". We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively large". If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier in the paper.
Line 222: Add "," after systematic. Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)".
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all, Thanks for the help, I just arrived at Nikhef (found a train!) and found Mick scanning my comments. But now that I’m here, I can just go ahead and merge it, so no reason for panic!
Cheers, Lennaert
On 02 Mar 2015, at 10:59, Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl wrote:
Hoi Lennaert,
Mick is zo vriendelijk zich te ontfermen overe deze zaak.... hij zal hetr mailen. groeten,
- Marcel
On 2 March 2015 at 09:21, Lennaert Bel <lbel@nikhef.nl mailto:lbel@nikhef.nl> wrote: Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl mailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments:
Line 101: Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several hundreds of MeV/c2".
Line 107: Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given.
Figure 2: Add "without background" after "signal". Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. Where is a description of these simulations? Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined.
Figure 5: A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other three numbers. Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional side bars".
Line 218: R does not represent a decay mode. Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by "both values of R and R*". We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively large". If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier in the paper.
Line 222: Add "," after systematic. Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)".
Best regards, Tjeerd
Citeren Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl mailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl>:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884 https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
and PAPER-2015-008, First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902 https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902
I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon.
Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one.
Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Lennaert,
I also have a list with suggestions (see att.). Let me know if something is unclear.
Cheers, Niels
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Lennaert Bel wrote:
Dear all,Thanks for the help, I just arrived at Nikhef (found a train!) and found Mick scanning my comments. But now that I’m here, I can just go ahead and merge it, so no reason for panic!
Cheers, Lennaert
On 02 Mar 2015, at 10:59, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nl> wrote:Hoi Lennaert, Mick is zo vriendelijk zich te ontfermen overe deze zaak.... hij zal hetr mailen. groeten,
- Marcel
On 2 March 2015 at 09:21, Lennaert Bel lbel@nikhef.nl wrote: Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem. Cheers, Lennaert > On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote: > > Dear Lennaert, > > Here are my comments: > > Line 101: > Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by > "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not > add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several > hundreds of MeV/c2". > > Line 107: > Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," > In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given. > > Figure 2: > Add "without background" after "signal". > Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. > Where is a description of these simulations? > Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined. > > Figure 5: > A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the > difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). > A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four > numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other > three numbers. > Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional > side bars". > > Line 218: > R does not represent a decay mode. > Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by > "both values of R and R*". > We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively > large". > If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier > in the paper. > > Line 222: > Add "," after systematic. > Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)". > > Best regards, > Tjeerd > > Citeren Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl>: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> We will collect comments by email on the two papers: >> >> PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- >> Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 >> Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884 >> >> and >> PAPER-2015-008, >> First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the >> decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ >> Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 >> Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902 >> >> I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday >> and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon. >> >> Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later >> dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one. >> >> Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics. >> >> Best regards, >> Tjeerd > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bfys-physics mailing list > Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl > https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
Please find attached the merged list of comments (including my own). If everything looks ok, I’ll submit it to CDS late this afternoon/tonight.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 02 Mar 2015, at 12:36, Niels Tuning h71@nikhef.nl wrote:
Hi Lennaert,
I also have a list with suggestions (see att.). Let me know if something is unclear.
Cheers, Niels
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Lennaert Bel wrote:
Dear all,Thanks for the help, I just arrived at Nikhef (found a train!) and found Mick scanning my comments. But now that I’m here, I can just go ahead and merge it, so no reason for panic! Cheers, Lennaert
On 02 Mar 2015, at 10:59, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nl> wrote:Hoi Lennaert, Mick is zo vriendelijk zich te ontfermen overe deze zaak.... hij zal hetr mailen. groeten,
- Marcel
On 2 March 2015 at 09:21, Lennaert Bel lbel@nikhef.nl wrote: Hi all,
I know the deadline’s today. But right now I’m at home and there’s no trains to Amsterdam, and my own comments are on my desk… Hopefully I’ll manage to get to Nikhef this afternoon and quickly merge it, but there won’t be a lot of time left to circulate in the group. I hope that’s not a big problem. Cheers, Lennaert > On 01 Mar 2015, at 21:55, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote: > > Dear Lennaert, > > Here are my comments: > > Line 101: > Replace "Due to the small ... a few hundred MeV/c2" by > "The small value of Delta M = M(Ds*-) - M(Ds-) = 140 MeV/c2 does not > add very much to the average transverse momentum of the photons of a several > hundreds of MeV/c2". > > Line 107: > Add "and a pm 70 MeV/c2 window, respectively," > In line 130 the more realistic value of this 70 is given. > > Figure 2: > Add "without background" after "signal". > Probably "simulations" with "s" is better. > Where is a description of these simulations? > Without the correction in line 101, Delta M is not clearly defined. > > Figure 5: > A rotated picture with horizontal bars is more suited and will show the > difference between total and statistical uncertainty better for R*(LHCb). > A table is of course the best way to represent a comparison of four > numbers with uncertainties, unless we do not want to give the other > three numbers. > Add "experimental uncertainties for R(*)(LHCb) are shown by additional > side bars". > > Line 218: > R does not represent a decay mode. > Replace "both R* ,vector, and R, scalar decays" by > "both values of R and R*". > We may add ", although the theoretical uncertainty of R* is relatively > large". > If you want to mention "scalar" and "vector" do it earlier > in the paper. > > Line 222: > Add "," after systematic. > Add "uncertainties" after "B(...)". > > Best regards, > Tjeerd > > Citeren Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl>: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> We will collect comments by email on the two papers: >> >> PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- >> Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 >> Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884 >> >> and >> PAPER-2015-008, >> First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the >> decay B0s -> D*s-+ K+-$ >> Deadline : 02-Mar-2015 >> Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992902 >> >> I will collect the comments for the first paper latest on Sunday >> and circulate them on Monday before updating and of the afternoon. >> >> Lennaert Bel will do the same for the second paper which has a later >> dead line. So latest comments on Monday for this one. >> >> Please, send your comments by reply to bfys-physics. >> >> Best regards, >> Tjeerd > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bfys-physics mailing list > Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl > https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics-- <comments-niels-02032015.txt>
Dear all,
I only received comments from Patrick, which I changed to avoid (mainly my own) confusion and added comments to lines 20, 118, 129, 137, 195 and figure 2 (see the attachment).
Patrick should correct me if I did something wrong or explain what I should not have left out.
Best regards,
PS With the dead line of 4 March, I will update tomorrow around 17h.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We will collect comments by email on the two papers:
PAPER-2015-010, Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi- Deadline : 04-Mar-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1992884
Best regards, Tjeerd
-
Lennaert Bel -
Marcel Merk -
Niels Tuning -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Tjeerd Ketel